• Infynis
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    The difference is, with the sun, you can actually look up and see it. You can use a telescope to see it in detail. You can determine which of the 5000 statements is true. You can study and understand it. With religion, they all have an equal basis in reality

    • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Not all religions have an equal basis in reality. If you have a religion that claims the sun is literally a divine, disembodied head that’s so mad it’s glowing, we can empirically disprove that. That’s just not what stars are. If you have one that correctly states what the sun is, that means the second religion has a better basis in reality than the first.

      We can also know things logically or philosophically, but can’t debate them scientifically. That’s often how we come to moral conclusions - we can’t strictly base how we should behave off of evolutionary advantages, for example.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I mean, that’s a pretty human-chauvinistic view. You can prove that the sun is a gigantic nuclear furnace, but you can’t really prove that gigantic nuclear furnaces aren’t what disembodied godheads look like.

        • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          We know what a head is. It’s a part of a biological creature. In the absence of some convincing evidence or argumentation otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to assume it’s a head.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Robots are not biological, yet many have heads that fulfill the same sensory function as biological heads. It is very possible that non-biological sentient entities exist, and in absence of some convincing evidence or argumentation otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to definitively assume nuclear sentiences can’t exist.

            • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              You’re piling on assumptions like crazy, which makes for a logically weak position. All other things being equal, the claim that relies on the fewest assumptions is more likely to be true. Given the increasingly outlandish assumptions at play, it makes more sense to believe that the sun is not a sentient head glowing with rage.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 hour ago

                Not really, no. My position is objectively based on fewer assumptions than yours. Occam’s razor is certainly useful, but it is not a tool for determining truth. It’s only a tool for determining the simplest explanation.

                Your assumption that sentient beings, and their heads, must be biological places your claim in a much more precarious position relative to the razor than mine.

                • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  44 minutes ago

                  You’re making the argument that it is, or could be, a sentient, angry head. No evidence or arguments for that position, other than “well we can’t say it isn’t” have been presented. A head is a defined object, and there’s no reason to modify the definition of “head” to include the sun. Your argument doesn’t make much more sense than “a hydrogen atom may be a carbon atom, your assumption that it isn’t is precarious.”

                  Occam’s razor is indeed for simpler arguments rather than article strictly for truth. But from my experience as an engineer, generally the fewer assumptions you make when coming to a conclusion, the closer to the truth you’ll actually be.

                  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    23 minutes ago

                    Correct. So assumptions like “life must be biological, and alternative claims are outlandish” places you objectively further from the truth.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      What if my god is the sun? Check and mate.

      Before you try and blaspheme, just know the power of my deity can and will give you cancer if you don’t anoint yourself with the proper sacrificial ointments.